The Climate Project Screening Tool Report for the

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Western District

Rebekah Zimmerer, Toni Lyn Morelli, Melissa Ocana, John O’Leary

February 2018

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Methods 4 Overview of the CPST 4 CPST Column Descriptions 5

Project activities of focus for the discussion 5 General climate change trends and local impacts 5 Key questions for managers 5 Response narrative 6

Continue with project? 6

Results 13 Overview 13

Interesting Findings 14

Climate Change Adaptation Techniques Already in Use 14

Using the Climate Action Tool 14

Next Steps 15

Conclusions 16 Works Cited 17

Appendices 18 Appendix 1: WMAs Not Discussed 18

Appendix 2: Additional Resources 18

Table of Tables

Table 1. Climate Project Screening Tool with responses from the Western District 7

Introduction

As the influence of climate change increases, it is important to consider how adaptation

techniques can be integrated into current natural resource management to reduce vulnerabilities

to wildlife and their habitats over time. Climate change adaptation in the near term is essential

because, owing to inherent time lags in climate impacts, the effects of increased atmospheric

greenhouse gases will be felt for decades even if effective mitigation begins immediately

(Melillo et al. 2014). However, climate science is a particularly challenging field given the level

of technical expertise required, its high degree of uncertainty, and the lack of knowledge of

climate change impacts at biologically relevant scales. Thus, climate change adaptation, although

understood to be important to resource management, has not been explicitly incorporated into

most wildlife management plans or actions.

Some decision-support tools have been developed to aid climate change planning and

preparedness in response to the needs of resource managers (Climate Change Resource Center

2017). One such decision-support tool is the Climate Project Screening Tool (CPST) (Morelli et

al. 2012), developed initially to aid national forests in the early stages of incorporating climate

concerns into operational work and recently modified to aid fish and wildlife management in

Massachusetts.

The CPST is a platform that natural resource managers can readily use to assess the

potential impacts of climate change on projects and management goals. The CPST is a review

and assessment tool that allows managers to explicitly and methodically consider current and

impending projects and priorities through the lens of climate change. It provides space to assess

whether a specific goal or project is appropriate in light of future climate trends. Through the

CPST process, some projects might be deemed inappropriate as originally designed and be

recommended for comprehensive redesign or removal from activity lists.

The CPST is a broad tool that can be modified to accommodate many different working groups

and management goals. For the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

(MassWildlife), the tool was modified to focus on projects within the Wildlife Management

Areas (WMAs) owned by the agency. Within MassWildlife, there are 5 Districts (Central,

Western, Connecticut Valley, Southeast, and Northeast), all with their own - and occasionally

overlapping - WMAs for which they are responsible. Information about many of the WMAs,

including key target species, can be found on the MassWildlife Lands Viewer, although this

information was not available at the time of these discussions.

This report focuses on the results of a meeting with the Western District’s Management

team using the CPST to facilitate a discussion of climate change activities on select WMAs. This

report provides specific responses to the discussion and process questions as well as general

findings and useful resources. Not all WMAs were discussed during the 3-hour meeting. Those

not discussed can be analyzed using this Climate Project Screening Tool at a future date.

Methods

Overview of the CPST

The CPST is a table where the first column lists specific project or management activities

of interest. Next, the tool provides a summary of climate change impacts relevant to the specific

management activity, poses useful discussion and process questions, and provides space for

response and record-keeping. Each management activity section concludes with a question of

whether to continue with the specific activity or not, and if so, if any portion of the activity

should be modified.

CPST Column Descriptions

(See Table 1 for the CPST layout and specific responses by managers at the meeting)

Project activities of focus for the discussion

An important first step is to identify the appropriate scale at which relevant activities will

be evaluated. To this end, all management activity categories were identified from the

Federal Aid report produced by MassWildlife. District managers were asked to fill out a

spreadsheet identifying which activities were being considered or actively done on each

WMA. This process allowed the CPST to be tailored to each District and provided a

coherent and efficient structure for the meeting.

General climate change trends and local impacts

Information about projected climate and ecosystem responses can be gathered from many

sources and summarized for key indicators of relevance to the local environment. The

scientific literature (including a report done specifically for the northeastern states, see

Useful Resources) and experts at the Department of Interior Northeast Climate Science

Center were the primary sources for local climate data for this report. The purpose of this

summary is to give managers a broad sense of anticipated and ongoing changes in climate

and related ecological responses throughout their District. The local impacts focus on

effects at a scale that is relevant to project design and highlight appropriate changes to the

project.

Key questions for managers

The purpose of this column is to facilitate thinking about the potential impacts of climate

change on a specific project type. The questions used to guide the discussion were

originally developed through meetings with US Forest Service resource specialists and

then modified with MassWildlife staff. Additionally, information on some project

activities was gathered from the MassWildlife website. After the questions were used in

the first meeting (with the Central District), modifications were made to enhance

relevance in future meetings.

Response narrative

The response narrative in the fourth column is the centerpiece of the CPST, where

managers or facilitators record their answers to the questions and thus their thinking

about the interaction between climate change and the project. Users are encouraged to

identify and document sources for their answers.

Continue with project?

The last column is where the user concludes whether to proceed with, modify, or cancel

the project given the response narrative. It is intended as a recommendation regarding

whether or not climate change impacts are likely to be: 1) insignificant enough to proceed

as originally designed, 2) substantial enough to require modification to the proposed

activities, or 3) whether the project cannot be adequately modified given relevant climate

change effects and thus should be withdrawn. Selection and documentation of one of the

three recommendations can then become part of a public report on how resource

managers considered climate change prior to project implementation.

Table 1. Climate Project Screening Tool with responses from the Western District

Project

Activity

Climate Change Trends

and Local Impacts

(for more information:

climateactiontool.org)

Key Questions

for Managers

Response Narrative

(please complete)

Continue

with

Project?

Stream

Restoration

& Culvert

Removal

Trends – Reduced snowpack, thus

earlier winter-spring peak

flows; wetter springs with

more flooding; longer, drier

summers, though with

heavier rainfall events and

thus increased risk of

flooding, exacerbated by

decreased imperviousness

from drier soils

Local Impacts – Vegetation and wildlife

species movement; reduced

water storage in soils;

changed hydrologic regimes

Will the hydrologic

system change from

perennial to intermittent

over time: e.g., what is

the future range of flow?

Powell Brook:

Dam removal and culvert replacement

Could still consider future conditions,

Eversource may be paying, might do a

bridge span

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

Can this area (or project)

withstand extreme

weather events? Events

more extreme than those

currently experienced?

Yes

Beavers are considered to protect the

hydrologic cycles in many WMAs and

mitigate some of those possible changes

Powell Brook:

Dam removal, barrier to fish passage

Are current plant/wildlife

species viable in the

future given changes in

water temperatures?

Yes, at least in the near future, good habitat

for brook trout and slimy sculpin, might be

ground water-fed

Is the restoration area

vulnerable to increased

fire events and/or

erosion?

Yes

Is this culvert a barrier to

species tracking climate

change?

Powell Brook:

Yes, dam is, that’s why it’s being removed

Vegetation

Control –

mowing,

hand cutting,

Trends –

Increased fuel buildup and

risk of wildfire; increased

interannual variability in

Will the activity be

sufficient to control

invasives that grow

larger and more

Activity is working at the current time.

Less snow cover in the winter allows for

more time to complete mowing projects.

The predicted outcome is that no, mowing

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

herbicide

precipitation, leading to

fuels build up and causing

additional forest stress;

increased stress to forests

during periodic multi-year

droughts;

Local Impacts – Densification of vegetation;

increased invasive aquatic,

plant, and forest pests;

earlier and longer growing

season

abundantly? will continue to be a useful tool to manage

invasive plants but not a complete solution.

Does the project area

include anticipated future

vulnerable areas (i.e.

higher elevation sites,

riparian areas, soil types

or ecosystems not

previously recorded as

invaded)?

No

For Chalet:

This is the main area for spruce and fir in

MA, a threatened cover type

It’s a bioreserve so species that are

connected to mature forest are targeted and

may be more vulnerable to climate change

Will the treatment season

need to be adjusted for

the earlier growing

season?

Activity is working at the current time.

Less snow cover in the winter allows for

more time to complete mowing projects.

The predicted outcome is that no, mowing

will continue to be a useful tool to manage

invasive plants but not a complete solution.

Will additional invasives

require more work hours

to control?

Need to think about brook trout,

salamanders, etc. -uncertain at present time

Keeping an eye out for phragmites but

none yet. Monitoring takes time

Reforestation

/ Restoration

Trends – Increased stress to trees

during periodic summer

droughts; reduced

snowpack; increased

invasive insects and disease

Local Impacts – Increased risk of tree

mortality; changes in local

species composition;

species range shifts

Will local conditions

change enough to alter

the desired species

composition?

There is the threat of Emerald Ash Borer

(EAB) which could change desired species

composition (10%-12% forest loss)

For Eugene D. Moran WMA:

Currently have a desirable species

composition coming in – goal of creating a

young forest cover type

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

Does tree planting

density and spacing

address anticipated water

availability and mortality

n/a, no planting being done

rates?

Are there certain species

or genetic pools of native

species that are well

suited for anticipated

vulnerabilities?

Unknown

Bear activity is increasing/lasting longer

into the fall and earlier in the spring

Deer movement is less predictable as

temperature is less predictable

Nesting

Structures –

Development

and

Maintenance

Trends – Reduced snowpack; earlier

green-up; longer, drier

summers, general shifts in

temperature ranges;

increased insect and disease

Local Impacts – Historical availability of

food and water sources may

be altered geographically

and temporally; suitable

range of habitat may alter

with changing forest stand

structure and temperature

and precipitation regimes

Are the plant/wildlife

species viable in the

future given changes in

food and water

availability, as well as

the range of future

habitat?

Yes, from knowledge known at this time

District maintains Kestrel, Bluebird, and

Wood Duck boxes

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

Are target species

arriving earlier?

If blue birds are arriving earlier, may need

to adjust next box set up

Additional seasonal issue: Difficult to get

to duck boxes when ponds don’t freeze

over; makes them hard to maintain

Are target species using

different habitats?

Wood duck boxes not used that often

(more often used by merganzers)

H Heusmann says not a priority, may be

using more natural areas, further inland;

wood ducks may benefit from fallen trees

and increase development of a maturing

forest type

Will the future habitat of

the focus species still

consist of the current

location?

Uncertain

Public

Access

Management

Trends – Increased interannual

variability in precipitation;

more extreme flood and

other weather events;

decreased water quality as

result of increased

watershed erosion and

sediment flow and warmer

waters; increased likelihood

of severe flood; increased

risk of fire

Local Impacts –

Changed hydrologic

regimes; soil disturbance

due to increased runoff and

movement of waterways;

likelihood of road washouts

and closures increase; storm

events exacerbate

sedimentation and erosion

from burned areas; changing

temperatures, precipitation,

and forest stand structure

(wildfire, species

extirpation) may alter

habitat range

Is current infrastructure

resilient given increased

extreme events (floods

and potentially

hurricanes)?

Subject to erosion that could get a lot

worse due to climate change. So, possibly

not resilient enough

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

Will flooding, drought,

and other extreme

weather events make it

more difficult to manage

public access?

Yes, in some cases and depending on how

severe the weather events are

Will more personnel

hours be needed to

manage public access

given future climate

trends?

Uncertain, but probably yes. Already

pressure from ATVs and other

unauthorized uses create additional

problems

For hunting, have shifts

in target species

distribution,

vulnerability, and

phenology (timing of

reproduction, migration)

been considered?

Consideration is taking place based on

observations and guidance of state

biologists

Fruit Trees –

Prune and

Release

Trends – Increased stress to trees

during periodic summer

droughts; reduced

Will local conditions

change enough to alter

the desired species

composition?

Low priority, try to find time to get to it but

have limited time

Don’t know about climate change effects

but seeing variation

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

snowpack; increased

invasive insects and disease

Local Impacts – Increased risk of tree

mortality; changes in local

species composition;

geographic movement of

species

Will new trees be planted

if old ones die or preform

goals poorly given future

climate trends?

No

Will present uses of the

fruit trees persist under

new climate models?

Uncertain, but trends indicate that most

species will persist but young trees will not

germinate depending on how much the

conditions have changed

Are there certain species

or genetic pools of native

species that are well

suited for anticipated

vulnerabilities?

Blueberry bushes, possibly a new strain of

chestnut

Agricultural

License

Agreements

Trends – Increased interannual

variability in precipitation;

more extreme flood and

other weather events;

decreased water quality as

result of increased

watershed erosion and

sediment flow; increased

likelihood of severe flood;

increased risk of fire

Local Impacts –

Changed hydrologic

regimes; soil disturbance

due to increased runoff and

movement of waterways;

likelihood of road washouts

and closures increase; storm

events exacerbate

In what ways do current

policies regarding ag.

license agreements

consider future climate

trends?

Not yet considering climate change and its

effect on profitability but could be a

consideration in whether to have an

agricultural license agreement for a new

property

□ Yes

□ No

□ Yes, with

modification:

Will climate change trends

influence the level of

involvement DFW has

with lease holders and the

properties?

Possibly, if species of grassland-nesting

birds arrive earlier/later that will influence

the nature of lease agreements and possibly

conversations between DFW and lease

holders

Should climate create a

more favorable

environment for

agricultural land, will

more properties be

converted to agricultural

land?

no

sedimentation and erosion

from burned areas; suitable

range of habitat may alter

with changing temperatures,

precipitation, and forest

stand structure (wildfire,

species extirpation)

Results

Overview

The facilitator team met at the Western District office in Dalton, MA, with 3 Western

District staff from MassWildlife: District Manager Andrew Madden, Wildlife Biologist Nate

Buckout, and Stewardship Specialist Jacob Morris-Siegel. During the fall of 2017, the facilitator

team met with all 5 district managers and select staff at their offices throughout the

Commonwealth. Meetings centered around management activities that were identified for a

given WMA. The purpose of this design was to encourage the discussion of multiple WMAs

when thinking about a specific management activity as well as to ensure that each type of

management activity occurring within the District was discussed at least once.

Conversation flowed from specific questions in the CPST to a broader discussion of

issues related to climate change to other issues faced by the District, and then back to the tool

questions in a cyclical pattern until all questions in the management activity section were asked.

An interesting secondary result of this meeting was that other management issues were

identified, such as bigger picture questions about the continued utility of wood duck boxes. This

secondary result was an unintended but beneficial outcome of considering climate change

impacts on Agency lands. Many of the comments, activities, and concerns faced by one District

were echoed at other Districts as well. These similarities and overlaps are included in this report

(see Table 2).

The CPST allows Districts to document that they are thinking about climate change when

making management decisions, whether they then choose to modify current activities or not.

Deciding that continuing with the current activities, or lack of activities, for now is sometimes

the appropriate choice at the end of the process. The critical step is to take time to consider

climate change - within daily activities and larger-scale plans.

Interesting Findings

Berkshire and Franklin Counties are losing populations while there is an increase in the

building of large second homes for non-full-time residents. This creates development

pressure on local wildlife populations and habitats.

Both Jug End and Chalet WMAs are bioreserves which means that there is no active

timber management or other management activity at those locations.

The Western District is considering the purchase of larger parcels of land that can act as

connectors between other critical parcels. Also, they are considering land purchases for

areas where species will move to, rather than just where species are found currently.

Climate Change Adaptation Techniques Already in Use

Timing of various management activities are being considered or actively changed:

o Mowing at Jug End Fen WMA is adjusted based on when the rattlesnakes are

present (as well as other WMAs based on species arrival and departure).

o Bluebird, kestrel, and wood duck boxes are being maintained according to the

arrival times of focal species

Considering the purchase of land for where species will be under climate change models

rather than where species are presently found

Considering another extension of bear hunting season because of warmer weather and

delayed onset of winter. Bear are up and moving around much later into the winter than

historically observed.

Using the Climate Action Tool

When faced with challenges to effective management as a result of climate change, the

Massachusetts Wildlife Climate Action Tool (CAT, https://climateactiontool.org) can be

particularly useful to District Managers. The CAT was developed in partnership by

MassWildlife, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Department of Interior’s Northeast

Climate Science Center, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit, so the information within is specifically geared towards the

Commonwealth. The CAT includes information on climate impacts, vulnerability of species and

habitats, and adaptation actions that can be taken. It was developed using a literature review of

the most recent scientific findings as well as new expert input.

District staff can use the CAT to find species-specific information that can be relevant to

management goals. For example, the Western District has the goal of encouraging species

recruitment at Eugene D. Moran WMA after a thinning was conducted there 15 years ago. If a

manager was interested in knowing how to achieve that goal while being mindful of the effects

climate change may have on their activities, they could look at the CAT website to find

information about the vulnerability of spruce fir forest as well as forest adaptation strategies

available. The spruce-fir forest at Eugene D. Moran is a cover type very affected by climate

change because of its cold adaptation, presence at higher elevations, vulnerability to fire, and

vulnerability to pest outbreaks. Please see Appendix 2: Additional Resources for examples of

actions on the CAT. Since the CAT is a place to showcase existing expertise and practices, it

could be modified to include some of the actions being undertaken by District staff as examples.

Next Steps

For the WMAs that were not discussed, the CPST can be used by District staff without

facilitation for future projects and plans. A manager can complete it by him- or herself or with

others on a team; we found great value in having multiple members of the staff present to share

their input and often to spark and deepen the dialogue. This also creates buy-in for the

implementation of actions. The versatility and simplicity of the CPST allows it to be useful in

more than just a few select scenarios and times. A complete copy of the CPST developed for

MassWildlife is available with this report.

Lastly, as its name indicates, the purpose of the CPST as a screening tool became

apparent when the need for additional time to develop coherent climate change adaptation for

some management activities and WMAs was identified. For projects such as these, the Climate

Adaptation Workbook (see Appendix 2) was mentioned, and the Workbook passed around. The

in-depth nature of the Workbook appealed to attendees and there is interest in planning a training

day at the Headquarters office, to learn how to use and implement it. The CPST could be

considered a first step and its completion can facilitate and enhance the use of the Adaptation

Workbook for projects that would benefit from more in-depth discussion and detailed planning.

Conclusions

Using the CPST to facilitate a discussion of climate change impacts on current and

planned management activities highlighted multiple results. In many cases, management

professionals did not initially identify any ways in which they were modifying their work

because of climate change and, in some cases, they did not readily identify ways climate change

was affecting their work. However, upon further discussion, it became clear that observations of

climate change and modification of activities were occurring, just not explicitly labeled as such.

Through the course of the discussion, it also became clear that agency-wide policies on climate

change would be helpful or, if already in existence, these could be communicated to Districts in a

more comprehensive way. As such, it would be particularly important to have both District and

Division Headquarters staff present at the meeting.

Overall, the CPST meetings provided a block of time for on-the-ground managers to

pause in an otherwise busy schedule and directly consider climate change as it relates to their

daily projects. The goal of these meetings was to facilitate this examination and encourage

thoughtful planning for current and future management activities. In this way, work hours and

physical resources can be used most effectively to protect and manage Massachusetts’ lands and

wildlife resources in a changing climate.

Works Cited

Climate Change Resource Center. 2017. United States Department of Agriculture – United States

Forest Service. Climate Change and Carbon Tools. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/tools.

Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, & G.W. Yohe, Eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United

States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program,

841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Morelli, T.L., S. Yeh, N.M. Smith, M.B. Hennessy, & C.I. Millar. 2012. Climate Project

Screening Tool: An Aid for Climate Change Adaptation. United States Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Research Paper PSW-RP-263. 40p.

Appendices

Appendix 1: WMAs Not Discussed

Abbott Brook WMA Farmington River

WMA

Housatonic River East

Branch WMA

North Egremont

WMA

Agawam Lake

WMA Fisk Meadows WMA Hubbard Brook WMA Oak Hill WMA

Ashfield Hawley

WMA

Flagg Mountain

WMA John J. Kelly WMA Ram Hill WMA

Barton's Ledge

WMA Flat Brook WMA

Jug End State

Reservation and WMA

Richmond Fen

WMA

Bullock Ledge

WMA

George L. Darey

Housatonic Valley

WMA

Kampoosa Fen WMA Savoy WMA

Cummington WMA Green River WMA Knightville Dam WMA Shales Brook WMA

Day Mountain

WMA Hawks Brook WMA Lilly Pond WMA Shaw Brook WMA

Dolomite Ledges

WMA Hinsdale Flats WMA Long Mountain WMA Stafford Hill WMA

Fairfield Brook

WMA Hiram H. Fox WMA Maxwell Brook WMA Stage Brook WMA

Swift River WMA Hop Brook WMA Misery Mountain

WMA

Appendix 2: Additional Resources

Massachusetts Wildlife Climate Action Tool http://climateactiontool.org - For specific

information on species and habitat vulnerability, climate trends in Massachusetts, and

adaptation strategies and actions. Example pages below.

o Species

Brook trout - https://climateactiontool.org/species/brook-trout

Moose - https://climateactiontool.org/species/moose

American Black duck - https://climateactiontool.org/species/american-black-duck

o Habitats

Vernal pools - https://climateactiontool.org/ecogroup/freshwater-wetlands-vernal-

pools

Spruce Fir forest - https://climateactiontool.org/ecogroup/forest-spruce-fir

Coldwater fisheries streams - https://climateactiontool.org/ecogroup/rivers-and-

streams-coldwater-fisheries-resources-streams

o Adaptation Actions

Culvert upgrades https://climateactiontool.org/content/maintain-habitat-connectivity-

retrofit-or-replace-culverts

Riparian restoration for coldwater streams

https://climateactiontool.org/content/ensure-cool-water-temperatures-protect-and-

restore-riparian-areas

Promote species in the northern and middle edge of their range

https://climateactiontool.org/content/promote-drought-and-heat-tolerant-species-

encourage-species-northern-and-middle-edge-range

Adaptation Workbook https://adaptationworkbook.org - A process to consider climate

change impacts and design adaptation actions. Similar to this CPST, but for a deeper dive

into climate change planning for a WMA.

Vulnerability Assessment of MA Species of Greatest Conservation Need (2017)

https://necsc.umass.edu/projects/vulnerability-northeastern-wildlife-climate-change-using-

decision-science-inform-manageme-0

North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC) streamcontinuity.org –

Database and background information on culvert assessment and prioritization.

The Deerfield Stream Crossings Explorer SCE.ecosheds.org – Tool to locate and prioritize

road-stream crossings. Include ecological data (aquatic connectivity from the NAACC,

coldwater streams) and transportation vulnerability data (risk of failure and EMS delays) for

Deerfield Watershed. Some of the data will be expanded to the entire state in the next few

months.

Climate Change Resource Center – Website run by the United States Forest Service

containing general information about climate change. The website also has a section with

specific tools that can be utilized when trying to make decisions in response to or monitor

impacts of climate change. There is even a section which allows users to search for specific

tools based on needs and geographic location.

Northeast Regional Invasive Species and Climate Change (RISCC) Management network

http://people.umass.edu/riscc - Northeast Climate Science Center initiative to address the

question “How can we manage for upcoming biological invasions in the light of climate

change?”

Integrating Climate Change into Northeast and Midwest State Wildlife Action Plans

https://necsc.umass.edu/projects/integrating-climate-change-state-wildlife-action-plans

Climate Change Tree Atlas and Bird Atlas http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/atlas/ - Includes current

and possible future distributions for over 100 tree and bird species in the Eastern US.